‘Disproving Popular Darwinist Myths’

Still not convinced that evolution is a fraud? A press release yesterday from San Antonio-based Vision Forum Ministries promotes “12 new half-hour episodes that disprove popular Darwinist myths in a family radio drama format.” Vision Forum’s president, Doug Phillips, says the the latest episodes of the Jonathan Park Creation Adventure Series show “the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the much-venerated worldview of Charles Darwin.” More about the series:

“The best-selling Jonathan Park audio drama series follows young Jonathan and his paleontologist family on their adventures around the globe. In ‘Jonathan Park and the Journey Never Taken,’ the Polar Star Medallion mysteriously shows up at the Brenan Museum of Creation, quickly throwing the Creation Response Team into a memorable scavenger hunt. Cryptic clues lead their team to Sweden, Scotland, and beyond in search of a promised treasure. Along the way, they explore the true history of Charles Darwin and his colleagues and learn how these men helped perpetuate the myth of a universe created without a Creator.”

This is the kind of stuff evolution-deniers on the Texas State Board of Education would love to see in science classrooms. The “war on science” marches on.

Advertisements

Share this:

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

This entry was posted on June 25, 2009 at 10:13 am and is filed under evolution. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

No amount of logic, evidence, or common sense will ever, ever, ever change the antievolutionists
who fear eternal retribution for any denial of a literal genesis. Consequently, they will fight
evolution to their last breaths. And so, our real focus is simply on keeping science (and all other
subjects) classrooms secular. This is a constitutional issue of church and state and ultimately not
one of science. I know everyone knows this but at times I have to remind myself.

It’s too bad these folks have money to spread around promoting utter nonsense. It would probably never occur to them to use this dough to feed the hungry or shelter the homeless. One wonders, what would Jesus do?

Contrary to opinions often expressed, a creationist can occassionally wake up and realize how wrong and childish his/her beliefs have been. I did, 27 years ago at the age of 42. It doesn’t often seem to happen, but it’s common enough that we need to keep promoting real science to people of all ages. If we give up on them, even those who might change will not.

In general, the voting public is quite ignorant about evolution and for that matter, the issues that make science dependable. Perhaps we are seeing in the efforts of the clowns @ VFM, attempts to start their softening of the minds of the electorate to gain a clear majority of aginers on the SBOE. To Beat these blockheads who have the peristence of fireants, seems impossible at times what with their inablity to look beyond Genesis as if it is our guide to all knowledge, a supportive govenor, an education committee who sugar coated YEC Mcleroy, and a senate that paid no attention to the absolute mess that is the SBOE and instead voted along party lines for all the pertinent issues. What does this tell us about our chances of geting change? The opposition is organized and active in promotion of deceit. The next thing may be the laws of aerodynamics referencing Rawlings/Harry Potter. We must be willing to outwork these deniers to gain control of education and influence the appropriate powers in the legislature. It’s not enough to rely on right makes might!!

Thank you! Folks like you are indeed out there, and some of them become science advocates in their own right with a very particular insight into the situation, like Denis Lamoureux, Glenn Morton, and Steven Godfrey. For my part, I promise I won’t give up on them.

I am the writer of the Jonathan Park series. For those creationists who are viewing the comments, make an observation… all of the comments against the broadcast are based on emotions — or straw man attacks. As a matter of fact, I am guessing that no one commenting here has even listened to the new productions. Therefore, they are countering the content of production without even knowing what is being presented. That tells me that they are not arguing against the scientific content, but simply responding to a position in which they disagree.

So here is a challenge for those of you who oppose the Jonathan Park series. Please feel to argue against the production, but in doing so, please first listen to the SCIENCE presented, and then challenge it based solely on scientific evidence, not your evolutionary BELIEFS. In other words, can you address the actual specific issues addressed in the production (sticking solely to science), and not just blast creation? Otherwise, it appears that you are emotionally reacting to evidence that opposes your beliefs, rather than rationally countering the scientific issues being presented.

PR Says:
June 25, 2009 at 8:18 pm
—So here is a challenge for those of you who oppose the Jonathan Park series. Please feel to argue against the production, but in doing so, please first listen to the SCIENCE presented, and then challenge it based solely on scientific evidence, not your evolutionary BELIEFS. In other words, can you address the actual specific issues addressed in the production (sticking solely to science), and not just blast creation? Otherwise, it appears that you are emotionally reacting to evidence that opposes your beliefs, rather than rationally countering the scientific issues being presented.—

The scientific community has overwhelmingly rejected your pseudo-scientific arguments. Once again, evolution is not a belief system, it is a fact!! Your videos only pollute young minds so that they can follow the “God Delusion”

Which scientists? True most have rejected creation. However, most of the founding fathers of science, and some very important scientists of today agree with creation. So do we pick and choose? Or do we consider the facts instead of just going with what is popular? Is scientific truth decided by a majority? If so, then we better go back to believing the sun orbits the earth because that was a majority at one time.

By the way, your reply to my challenge still contained no scientific content.

As a side note, it is impossible to hear the “tone” on a post. I just want to let you know that I appreciate scientific debate. That is how we all learn more!

No matter what new tact the ID’ers come up with, the final basis for their ‘evidence’ is the Bible and that it is the ‘unerrant and infallible word of God’.
Their ‘basis’ has been proven fallible, full of errors and is most of all not the word of God but of man, many men as a matter of fact.
So as long as the facts of the Bible’s origins and errors are brought out, there can be no evidence to support their claims!
Just keep asking…”on what do you base this evidence on?”
Eventually, you will get back to some ‘Biblical evidences’ that underly any and all claims of the Creationist/ID’er!

So what are we going to do about all this? The sectarians and partisans say they are being “bashed”, religion is being bashed, implying that’s somehow unfair, off limits, in some rule book, somewhere. And that justifies bashing back because of the “moral bankruptcy” of science? Modern science bashing has been in flower for more than a century. Of course, it was happening three, four, five centuries ago too, and it cost many their heads. Skinner would note that someone on each side of this must be benefiting significantly for it to continue for so many centuries. Brother Jim said it: If God had wanted there to be elections, He would have invented candidates. Beneficent God we have. To the declared candidates, and those who are considering such a commitment, thoroughly teach yourself what you can do through the SBOE for the public school students of Texas and never loose sight of that political insight, come prepared with a list of your “whistle stops” in the district in which you are running for the next three months, and a well elaborated strategy for getting the six figure funding you need to run a viable campaign in any SBOE district. So, what are we going to do about all this?

PR, the reason most people here don’t want to discuss science with you is that we’ve discussed science with creationists before. It’s a tremendous waste of time. What creationists calls “science” turns out to be lies, deception, dishonesty, and pure bullshit, all designed to support a Bronze Age myth. You will, of course, claim that you have something different. All creationists say that, and I have no doubt you truly believe it, but you are deluded. You were probably indoctrinated into creationism by your parents, and you should blame them for damaging you in that manner. No way will I ever debate you, because the creationist trolls that have visited here have proved that they will cling to their ancient beliefs despite the actual evidence. Now, if you want to debate about your religion or the existence of god, go for it. Tell me why you believe in Yahweh rather than Odin or Zeus or Ba’al. If I say the bible was written by Satan as a means to torment mankind–and that there is no other supernatural entity in existence–can you refute me? I’m sure whatever evidence you have for your god, I can argue equally well that Satan simply planted that evidence to trick you. And I’d have just as much evidence for my beliefs as you do for yours.

I am leaving right now on a weekend trip. I’ll have some science for you at the start of next week. So Doc Bill, I’ll definitely throw something out for you to gnaw on — and Eastex50, I’ll keep it strickly science.

Charles, I’ve been here, just reading. I’ve been enjoying the quiet–no trolls–but I can’t help but mock the creationists when they appear. Not going to debate, though. Learned my lesson. Their heads are like granite.

The first time a creationist shows up, you don’t know he’s offering sewage. He says, “Here, have this cup of science.” You say, “Well, that doesn’t look like science, but okay.” You realize your mistake right away.

The second time a creationist shows up, you say, “No, thanks, I don’t want any sewage.” He says, “This isn’t sewage, I promise. Trust me.” and you figure he wouldn’t lie right to your face, so you try it. Pure sewage again.

After that, every time a creationist appears, you’re too smart to try their sewage. They might show up with variations on the sewage–maybe they’ve added food coloring to make it look different, or they’re calling it by a different name–but it’s still sewage. So then they use other tactics. They plead. They whine. They act indignant. They claim to have superior knowledge. They say, “Oh, you’re scared to try this cup of science, aren’t you? You say it’s sewage, but it’s pure science, but you’re too scared to refute me. You can’t refute me.”

In the event that you actually finally break down because you just can’t stand it anymore, and you take a look at the “science,” you know what you get?

Yeah, you do know. We all know. And we’ll see it again when our current troll returns.

How many times, how many, how many, hoWmAnY have we engaged creationists not with ridicule, laughter and derision which they certainly earn and deserve, but with a simple offer to show us your wares only to have them run off because:

1. left the oven on.
2. leaving for a trip. gotta go!
3. get back to you real soon.
4. it’s too complicated to write in a posting (although I’ll write 900 pages of excuses, whining and complaints over the next 3 months)

So, PR, old bean, you go on your trip and think real hard about what you’re going to bring us back as a souvenir. And as a suggestion, please drop over to the Talk Origins archive and try to find something that’s not already been debunked. I’d like a new bone to gnaw.

I feel another 95 -comment farce coming on. However, if I have to watch it, I am at least going to ground this thing in some truth from the outset:

1) PR. I am one of the Christian personalities on this blog. You can lie to everyone else here, but you cannot lie to me. I know the score, and the score is that EVERYTHING you will have to say in this argument rests ultimately and solely on your faith that Genesis 1 is literal history and science. You know as well as I do that actual science has little or nothing to do with where you stand. I just do not understand why you and people like you persist in lying about this simple fact. It has always been my understanding that God despises lies and will not honor a strategy founded upon one. The so-called Wedge Strategy, which you are pursuing here, is a lie. Plain and simple.

2) Just like PR. Some folks here will be operating from the other end of the faith spectrum. That will be the “No God exists” faith perspective. I am not real sure what that has to do with science because good science is simply good science, regardless of your faith perspective. For you “No God” guys, I will note one important thing. From the outset, PR knows that the overall argument itself (science or no science) is going to go nowhere and that nothing will be resolved by it. He knows that all he has to do is stick to his position to the bitter end—no matter what real scientific facts are presented, no matter how good they are, and no matter how many of them are presented. He knows that he cannot convince you, and you know that you cannot convince him. However, that is not PR’s end goal. His end goal is to reach the fence sitters who visit this blog (the people of Texas who are unsure about faith, science, and evolution). PR knows that most of these people have C-average high school diplomas. He knows that your real scientific arguments are so far above their knowledge level that these simple people will not understand a word you are saying. PR also knows that his complex pseudoscience BS arguments will be above these people’s heads too. However, whereas they will TOTALLY not understand the real science, he plans to also salt his BS arguments with just enough rube simplicity that the common man’s mind will appear to grasp something and that something will be his exclusive property—thus drawing the common man to his side. For example, disingenuous BS like, “When was the last time a lizard went to bed and woke up the next morning with chicken wings.” However, PR’s real goal is to simply exhaust you by sticking to his position no matter what. If he exhausts you, and that will be obvious to the common man, he walks away a winner because he will leave the common man with the ILLUSION that he has won the argument. Once again. This whole approach to argument is based on PR’s premediated strategy of dishonesty. Dishonesty like this is not of the Lord Jesus Christ, but I know you atheists don’t care about that anyway. So, wear yourselves out for nothing and let PR walk away looking like a winner. It will only hurt the school children of Texas.

3) I learned to stay out of these arguments a long time ago because they go nowhere.

Charles is a tough act to follow, but I will note a simple rule about these discussions. The creationists have nothing in peer-reviewed scientific research papers. Thus, they have no science to bring to the table, and should instead address whether they think that the world’s scientific community is incompetent, or engaged in a decades-long global conspiracy to keep evidence against evolution out of the literature. They must be called on this point – of course, the rest of the discussion then becomes very silly.

I have 2 degrees: Biology and Chemistry. Will I publish??? Publish what?? Are you referring to the statement: “The scientific community has overwhelmingly rejected your pseudo-scientific arguments. Once again, evolution is not a belief system, it is a fact!!”

I don’t have to publish. They (the scientists) already have. Just go to the PubMed website http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/
And do a search on “evolution” you’ll see all the peer-reviewed articles that use/support evolution. Currently, there are 245037 articles. Doing another search for “creationism” shows 102 articles which detail how pseudo-science (creationism) tries to pollute the high school environment. Creationism does not and will not have a place in science education, ever.

Where are your peer reviewed science articles that show that creationism works??
By the way, are you johnathan saenz???

—Charles is a tough act to follow, but I will note a simple rule about these discussions. The creationists have nothing in peer-reviewed scientific research papers. Thus, they have no science to bring to the table, and should instead address whether they think that the world’s scientific community is incompetent, or engaged in a decades-long global conspiracy to keep evidence against evolution out of the literature.—

The peer review issue is quite correct, and I would also point out (as you all know) that many of the peer reviewed articles are written by scientists who are either Christians or have no particular religious ax of any kind to grind with their research. The idea that most scientists head down to their offices and labs everyday in high hopes that this will be the big day when identify proof that there is no God is—well—insane. Anyone who seriusly thinks that needs to check in for same major mental health services. The two or three scientists that might actually be stupid enough to be doing that need to check in with a psychiatrist as well because, if i recall correctly, there quite probably is no such thing as a God experiment in real science—especially if the all powerful God being testing simply decides to not show up.

However, our friend jdg said something that disturbed me a bit:

“Creationism does not and will not have a place in science education, ever.”

I wish that he or she had put a footnote on that statement that said, “As long as sensible heads prevail.” Sensible heads often do not prevail. The black-turban religious leaders of Iran are proof enough of that. The Discovery Institute crowd is not fighting a science battle. The science battle is all smoke and mirrors—a diversion if you will. They are fighting a public relations battle for the hearts and minds of the C-average high school graduate on the streets. This is one reason why I disapprove of scientists battling pseudoscience with real science in these meaningless skimishes like the one being set up here for Monday. If we want to win this war for serious science in the classrooms, I think we need to seriously be out there on the front lines doing battle to win the heart and mind of Susie Freeman (D – minus in high school biology). You are not going to win her over with a complex biochemical argument. She had hard enough of a time learning how to pronounce “photosynthesis,” much less understanding how all those plants actually make all that sugar.

She can be won only with the simple things she can understand. She can be won with anti-fundamentalist theological arguments. She can be won by an appeal to common sense. She can be won with the simple truth that a government run by creationist types will take away some of her most cherished freedoms—like popular music, dancing, using cosmetics, and Budweiser. Convince her that giving into people like “PR” will result in a whole nation under the governmental thumb of the worstnightmare 3rd grade teacher ever conceived—only this 3rd grade teacher sends people to concentration camps and pops a bullet into their heads (see Mullahs of Iran). Remember what Southern Baptist Dr. R. Kirby Godsey has said:

“There is not a dime’s worth of difference in Christian, Baptist, Jewish, or Islamic fundamentalism. They are all dangerous, evil forms of religious commitment. People who maim, kill, and destroy, and put other people down in the name of God are children of evil and the appeal to God’s name does not bring sanctity to their work. Holy meanness is still meanness.”

I am concerned that people like us, you and me, will be still busily scribbling our evolution-supporting equations on the blackboard for people who never got past 8th grade arithmetic while the “PR’ side does an end-around run to victory on a whole different path. Your new opponent “PR” is counting on just that.

Charles, I agree with you about good science. No need for any gods to enter into it. That’s why it’s valid for me (or any non-creationist) to point out that creationist claims (against evolution, global warming, etc.) are rooted in what is, in my opinion, ancient mythology.

But if I argued that Genesis shouldn’t be taken literally, rather than being fully honest and saying it shouldn’t be taken figuratively either, I’d be softening my position so as to avoid being offensive to mainstream Christians. Frankly, that doesn’t appeal to me at all.

chales says
I am concerned that people like us, you and me, will be still busily scribbling our evolution-supporting equations on the blackboard for people who never got past 8th grade arithmetic while the “PR’ side does an end-around run to victory on a whole different path. Your new opponent “PR” is counting on just that.

Yes you are correct. We can try to correct them but they won in texas, remember that. As long as we sit here and do nothing, they going to win. And they are winning. Creationist biology teacher now have the green light to teach their superstitious nonsense.

Okay everyone, I’m back from a wonderful camping trip. I can see by all the posts above, that everyone’s ready to take me apart! As promised, I’m ready to get into it!

Here’re just a few thoughts to begin:

1. Instead of attacking me for things that others have said, please attack me for my own arguments. In other words, I don’t want to defend arguments or statements made by anyone that’s ever said anything concerning creation.

2. I can see from the above discussions that I have already been called every name in the book. If I am wrong, then attack my ideas, not my intelligence or motives (especially when you don’t even know me). I promise that I will not attack your intelligence or your motives – but take you at face value. Will you do the same for me? By the way, to say that someone is stupid or evil because they disagree with you is very closed minded. I’m okay if you disagree with me – can you be okay if I disagree with you without attacking my character? When it gets nasty, I believe it really appears to weaken your argument. The question comes to mind: why are they calling me names and questioning my honesty instead of talking science?

3. I will do my best to admit when I don’t know the answer to something. I am only a human – and have so much more to learn. But I will do my best to give you a run for your money.

4. Someone mentioned that we creationists always deteriorate into using Bible verses. While I do believe in the Bible, I say we keep this discussion on science.

5. Finally, like many of you, I don’t have a ton of time to invest into this discussion. So I will do my best to get back into the fray whenever I can. This means that I will most certainly not be able to keep up with every argument thrown at me. To do that, I’d have to ignore more important things in my life. So please, don’t misinterpret my lack of input as a lack of interest… life just gets busy.

I know I have no right to ask anything of you, but I guess at the same time I do have the right to decide how I’m going to spend my time – and if this turns into a name-calling, nasty straw-man bashing session – I’ve got better things to do.

Okay, so let’s get started. In a paragraph or two – what its the ABSOLUTE BEST proof for evolution (I’m guessing this is about to bring on a flood of response – much more than I can respond to – so I’ll do my best to answer what I can)?

Mr. Roy, with all due respect, we’re not sure the onus here is on supporters of evolution. Rather than simply reading a single paragraph or two with the “absolute best” proof for evolution, you could read thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles, books and other research supporting the science of evolution. The burden is on opponents of evolution to show how the overwhelming majority of the world’s scientists and all that research for well over a century are somehow all wrong. That can only be done by peer-reviewed, hard research, not radio programs. But the counter research simply isn’t there — certainly none of the quality that would be required to call into question one of the most-researched and best-supported scientific concepts today. We chose to write a post about your radio programs to show how opponents of evolution are so unserious about really challenging the science that they have essentially abandoned such efforts in favor of using popular media as if this were a propaganda campaign to persuade the general public rather than a question of conducting the research and finding the real evidence needed to persuade scientists.

TFN, I understand where you’re coming from. I guess I’m just trying to give us a starting place. I know this will be no problem for any of you. You are all committed to the theory, so a couple of brief paragraphs will be a piece of cake. So if you don’t mind obliging me, it would be great if someone could get us started with the BEST proof for evolution.

I am leaving right now on a weekend trip. I’ll have some science for you at the start of next week. So Doc Bill, I’ll definitely throw something out for you to gnaw on — and Eastex50, I’ll keep it strickly science.

Talk to you on the otherside of the weekend!

PR

PR, you seem to have forgotten that it was you that said you would provide a little science (that supports creationsim) for us.

Now are you going to provide us with legitiamate peer reviewed science that supports creationsim?

PR, I look forward to your strictly scientific chewtoys – my teeth are a bit itchy, and I need something to gnaw on, too. You’re the one that promised us something along those lines, remember? We’re on this side of the weekend now.

You were going to provide us some creation science to gnaw on, not the other way around.

Tell you what, let’s get right to the point. ALL of creation science depends and is based on a worldwide flood. Without the flood you got nothing.

So. Tell us about the flood. It’s fun!

1. Using the formula for the volume of a sphere, V = 4/3 pi r cubed, calculate the volume of water in cubic miles necessary to cover the Earth from sea level to a depth of 30,000 feet (round up to 6 miles to simplify the calculation).

2. Where did all that water come from and support your answer with a calculation or physical evidence?

3. Once the Earth was completely covered in water, how did it drain away? Again support your answer with a calculation or physical evidence.

4. And, just for fun, if you were standing at the Alamo in San Antonio, Texas and it started to rain, how fast would the water rise to reach a depth of 30,000 feet in 40 days?

Yes, I agree that this is a set up for the old ploy of show me your proof and let me focus on trying to tear it down. I would like to see something else.

According to the creationists, the work of millions of scientists (Christian and nonChristian) on evolution around the world for the past 100 years has resulted in a WRONG body of science that wrongly supports evolution. Therefore, I think it would be appropriate for Pat Roy to present the highly detailed, complex, and systemically integrated ALTERNATIVE body of correct science that all of these millions of scientists have somehow MISSED over the years–and show us the peer-reviewed scientific articles and reports that support it.

Reading it I noticed PR tried the same ploy, what is the “BEST evidence” for evolution, and also claimed he didn’t much time to debate as he did here. He got hit so hard with a real example of retroviruses in the human genome that he didn’t respond.

PR doesn’t have any science so I don’t think we will hear from him again.

My guess is that we won’t see PR again. I’ve posed the Water Challenge to many creationists over the years and, of course, they can’t meet it. Often, creationists try to duck the question by referring to Kent Hovind or Walt Brown or Ken Ham or John Baumgartner, but as we well know, all those guys just make stuff up, like Brown’s magical hydroplates and Hovind’s planet-killing ice canopy.

But, during the dog days of summer if you want to have some fun, or if you haven’t dipped your toe into pure Young Earth Creation Science, then by all means download the Jonathan Park “study” guides and wallow in some 100% crazy. Although it’s targeted at 12-14 year olds, it’s written at a 9-10 year old level. That said, many concepts presented in the guides are way, way beyond middle school, such as cladistics, thermodynamics, physics and history, but it’s so dumbed down that it’s totally incomprehensible. It’s written to purely cast doubt about science and as “educational” material it’s reprehensible.

I can’t imagine presenting this kind of dreck to children. It’s akin to intellectual child abuse to portray this orchard of picked cherries as representing reality.

You are right — I have put the same duplicate posts on the atheistexperience blog. I am new to posting on discussions like this. Instead of trying to maintain arguments on both sites, I would love to direct people here. Can you guys let me know proper etiquette – can I post there letting people know that they can come to this site – so I can maintain this discussion exclusively here instead of trying to keep up with both? Can anyone let me know if this is a fair thing to do?

Doc Bill,

I like your style… you keep challenging me on a scientific issue instead of hurling insults at me. Further, you took time to actually read some of my work – even though you completely disagree with me (or think I’m crazy), I appreciate that you took time to find out my stance before you began challenging me!

Okay, I’ll do my best to answer your questions from above.

1. You asked me to calculate the volume of water needed to cover the earth. However, I can tell that you are basing your formula on our current land mass and height of mountains (Everest). Remember that we claim that much of the uplift might have taken place after the flood. So currently there is 332,500,000 cubic miles of water on the globe at present. I have heard that if our current land mass was level, that the current amount of water would cover the globe at 7,500 feet. Now, I am not claiming that there were no hills or mountains prior to the flood, but it does show that the current water is sufficient to cover the land mass to a fair depth. So your answer: I believe 332,500,000 cubic miles of water would be my answer.

2. Where did all the water come from? My answer is that no water was added or taken from the earth as a result of the flood. It sounds like you’re familiar with Dr. John Baughmgardner’s model. I believe he has provided a way for releasing the water into the atmosphere to return as precipitation. Also, as the creator of the Terra (mantle simulation software used by Los Alamos National Lab), he has modeled the sinking of pre-flood ocean floor, and the lifting of continents afterward.

3. At the completion of the flood we had uplift as new mountains formed. The flood waters simply collected in the current basins. Remember that uniformitarians make similar claims concerning continents. Based on Hutton’s observations at Siccar Point, they claim that continents erode, to reform at the bottom of the sea, only to be uplifted again (do you accept Hutton’s view of sinking and uplift?)

4. Okay, to rain 30,000 feet in 40 days (specifically at the Alamo — excluding correction for San Antonio storm drains 🙂 ) would be an average of 9000 inches per day. Got your point… ridicules. But again, 30,000 feet is based on the current level needed today to cover Everest. However, the flood covered the highest point to 60 feet. To rise 60 feet, an average of 18 inches per day is needed. So the unknown question, how high was the highest point prior to the flood. That is unknown. So is there a mechanism that could provide that much rain? Doubtful. But again, the account mentions water from below. That seems to fit nicely with Baumgardner’s model.

I know I’m going to get a thousand replies to this – all pointing out my error – and I’m okay with that. Just know that I can’t answer them all. Like all of you, I’m trying to make a living, spend time with my family, and do all the other things required in life. So I will answer as I can.

Alright, question for you. How did the first non-living matter become living?

Sorry, but I don’t accept your answer. Even Baumgardner is unable to come up with a thermodynamical mass-energy balance to make his model work, and has admitted that. Old news. Same for Walt Brown. Unable to provide a mechanism for forcing water up from the “fountains of the deep.” Also, neither Baumgardner nor Brown can account for where the water came from or where it went.

The point you just don’t get, and no creationist gets and never will get and I’m not holding my breath, is that I don’t concede to your concocted terraforming events. No, the Earth was not flat 5000 years ago. I’m not going to allow you to simply say the Earth was flat without you providing evidence of such. No oceans? This comes under the heading of Making Things Up.

Remember, we’re talking science here. If you want to dive off and say, well, God could create the water and blah, blah, blah, that’s fine. I’m cool with that because now you’re talking religious creationism and not science. But, then, my view that the Earth rests on the back of a giant sea tortoise is equally valid.

With most creationists I cut them some slack and let them calculate water volumes based on the height of Mt. Ararat of 14,000 feet, but still, of course, it’s an impossible amount of water to account for, or to drain. Are you seriously suggesting that the highest point on the planet at the time of the flood was less than 60 feet above sea level? Seriously? And your evidence for this is what.

As for the rain, you still have a problem even to product 18 inches – globally! The rain cycle is based on evaporation. Even if the Earth was flat or flat-ish in your cartoon version, and if ALL the water evaporated and returned as rain, you’d end up with exactly the same amount of water.

Any way you look at it you’re short of water. You can’t demonstrate where it came from, you can’t demonstrate where it went.

However, I’m a charitable guy. I’ll give you a flat earth and 60 feet of water depth. But, (evil me) in doing so I rob you of all the power to create the Grand Canyon, Ayres Rock, and all the churning, mudding, deposition creating activity because you can’t even get close to that kind of activity with a 60 foot flood. I’m well prepared to demolish any flood geology argument using thousands of feet of water, but with 60 feet I’d just tell you to go back to your sandbox, kiddo, the big boys are on the playground.

Face it, Pat, there was no global flood. Except in your mind. You need to conduct an intervention with those voices in your head and set them straight. Then such rainbows you will see.

Thanks Ben, for the Atheist link and to Doc Bill for the waterworks. It is obvious that as a writer of creationist pornography Pat has little credible defense for his position in the Origin of the Species. I have learned the hard way not to argue with this phenotype unless true debate rules are in effect with referees and rule of scientific evidence as advocated by the NAS. Otherwise, its a waste of time and guarantees frustration. The challenge you guys are making is the correct one: make him itemize why creationism is the superior answer. After a number of these encounters, I have yet to hear or see any of these lemings able to give credible answers to this challenge; instead they attack some petty points in the natural selction system
in hopes of casting doubt assuming that the flip side of this coin would be the recognition of a creationist answer: God did it as described in Genesis. They are totally dependent on the literal interrpretation of the Word Of God as the authority instead of its obvious allegorical nature. There are so very many examples of unbeleivable happenings, statements, and outright plagerisms in Genesis alone beginning with the two creation stories(2?), the garden fiasco with God showing his parental temper, the two flood descriptions which were lifted from the tablets of King Gilgamesh (2000 bce) were virtually identical
to those earlier records which began with warnings from the “gods” and directions for the arcs construcion The gathering of animals and the journey itself is quite similar. Genesis is supposed to have been written in 900bce, oops. Later, the laws of Moses, presumbled to be God’s laws, are actualy vitual copies of The codes of Hammarabi which are detailed rules of Summarian behavior and cultural mangement circa 2001bce. When viewed in parellel they are quite similar to Moses laws from 1400bce. No coincidence. And there are many more, too many to mention, but the point is the authors were using parables and folk tales to tell therir stories; not to be taken as literal truth. Conrad Skinner in his book Concerning the Bible talks to the bible as authority from God : Q. How do you know God said it? A.Because the bible says so. Q. Whydo you consider the bilble as the authority? A. Because its Gods word. The typical inescapable viscious circle; using the questionable source to prove its merit. The logical closing question which I have used in these sessions: If the authors of Genesis would have had access to what we now know about evolution through natural selection and what we know about the universe, would they still have used the fairy story format to describe “The Beginning.” And if God really was the one to inform the authors about creation He would have known better and would he really lie? The sad thing about This whole discourse is that the creationists dont know the real history of their own ascribed authority. They seem to want to believe without evidence. Science on the other hand tends to have stronger belief in ratio to the strength of the evidence.

The canonical retort is, “Define ‘living’ ” – and you should give that some very serious thought.

But to answer your question: the answer(s) is only beginning to be discovered. The first baby steps have been within my lifetime. Every year brings new pieces of that very large puzzle, like Powner, et al’s paper a month ago on a plausible way to build RNA from known abiotic materials. We can say for pretty certain that, on this planet, the steps from absence of life to presence of life took place over 3,500,000,000 years ago, and that you and I are descendants of some organism from that time.

As to building the Himalayas in a year, or a millenium: that generates heat. Quite a lot. Enough to boil the oceans into space if you try it that quickly. And besides, we have the rocks and fossils to show that it didn’t happen, any more than a recent global flood happened.

You said you would supply us a little real science concerning evolution. But so far you have only given a classic creationist explanation of the Genesis flood. Which is, of course, not science and for which there is no geological evidence to support it.whatsoever.

You don’t seem to understand that making a claim about how something happened is not evidence that it actually happened that way. I have had this problem with creationists before. They can’t tell the difference between a speculation and evidence.

So back to your original commitment.

Where is the science (not religion, superstition, speculation, etc.) you promised that disproves evolution?

You seem to be intentionally avoiding providing the information you promised. And you are looking very foolish.

Here’s a quote directly out of the Jonathan Park study guide that presumably PR wrote:

“Lately, many scientists have begun looking for water on other planets. Since water is necessary for life, they think that if they find water on a planet then life might have evolved there. However, this is a silly idea – first of all life doesn’t evolve’ and secondly, life needs so much more than water – life is a special creation by God!”

First of all, I love how they use exclamation marks all through their text! It’s so cute! I wish my graduate chemistry textbook on physical chemistry used exclamation marks when explaining the Carnot cycle! It would have been much more fun! And more sciency!

Now, who among us might view this quote as a science stopper? Anyone? Buehler? Ben Stein? Anyone? It’s a silly question, isn’t it, water on other planets. And don’t you love the conclusion designed to poison little minds: after all life doesn’t evolve.

Hey, PR, we’re still waiting for that little piece of creation science bone to gnaw on. I guess it might be a while, huh, ’cause I suspect you’re going to scuttle back to your little creationist echo chamber and pull the covers over your pointed head. But, thanks for playing.

” I would love to direct people here. Can you guys let me know proper etiquette – can I post there letting people know that they can come to this site – so I can maintain this discussion exclusively here instead of trying to keep up with both?”

C’mon guys. You know that there could not possibly be life on any other planet. The Bible does not officially authorize the creation of life at any other location in the universe other than Earth. Life has been and is now exclusive to planet Earth.

Moreover, the only sure constant in the universe is that there will be change. Given enough time, everything changes. Mountains erode. Wives leave. Food goes stale. However, life itself never changes. It is always the same. Life is forbidden to change, or at least the Bible does not give it specific authority to change. Therefore, it cannot change. It is impossible for it to change. Change applies only to everything else in the universe.

Okay guys, I invited the others from the other BLOG in which I was posting.

Doc Bill,

Not surprised you don’t accept my answers!

Hey, you said Baughmgarder admitted that he couldn’t make his model work? Not questioning you on this, I’m sincerely asking for a link on that so I can check it out for myself.

By the way, I don’t believe the earth was flat – you had asked me to solve an equation that would’ve taken the max amount of water to cover modern-day Everest, I was simply giving the absolute “lower limit” to show the other side. I know the truth probably falls in-between.

I didn’t say God created the water… I said it happened with our current water.

As far as 18 inches being too much… I agree, and even said that. I suggested through shifting of the plates, the same water we have today is what covered the continents.

As far as where the water went, I believe uplift caused the water to drain into current basins.

As far as Ararat… seems like a logical elevation to use — however, could it be that uplift on Ararat continued after the flood?

Got your point about a 60 foot flood not able to create Grand Canyon (by the way, many creation geologists do not credit the flood for Grand Canyon), Ayers Rock, etc. But remember my 60 foot flood was just a scenario that showed that I didn’t have to cover the current Everest. Of course I believe it was higher.

I didn’t mean to be a whiner… just wanted to stay on topic, instead of on personal accusations. I get your point – no whining, and say something! Got it!

Mandrellian, great point when you said: “Micro-evolution+time = macro-evolution.” That makes total sense, and unfortunately that is what many creationists do say. I’ve heard them say micro-evolution is just a bunch of small changes, but they don’t add up to big evolutionary change.” We are in agreement, that’s not logical. Over a long period of time, small changes would add up to big ones — it would eventually become macro-evolution.

So do I believe that small evolutionary changes are happening? No. Let’s take a simple look at the difference between our two views:

Evolution: As Darwin first portrayed it, evolution is a tree. We start with a simple organism at the trunk and then it branches out into all the species that we see today. This is a model that DOES explain all the variety we see around us today.

Creation: This model can be portrayed as an orchard. From the start there was the appearance of all the created kinds (individual trees). Each kind has (as we still see today) a huge variety of genetic information. Each of these trees in the orchard expresses a huge amount of variation and adaptation through different reshuffling of this original genetic information. However, since it can only vary and adapt based on the original genetic information, it reaches a limit – and then stops. This model also provides an explanation of all the variety we see around us today.

So here is the classic scenario in the evolution/creation debate:

– We both make the same observation (in this case, all the varieties)
– We can both make theories to explain our observation (in this case a tree or an orchard)

So what next? Then we need to place both theories under investigation to see which best holds up to what we observe. We see adaptation and variation happening all the time. We breed different dogs to create all kinds of different ones by reshuffling their genetic code. As we specialize, we loose some of that original genetic information – and we can even get to the point of loosing the ability for breeding (as March Hare points out above). We also see example after example of organisms that adapt to their environment. So adaptation and variation are accepted concepts that we can scientifically confirm. So whose model does that fit with best? BOTH!

Okay, now here’s the rub: Creationists believe that this genetic reshuffling (variation and adaptation) is sufficient to describe all the variety we see today (based on those original orchard trees). So my model fits scientific principles on which we both agree (referring to the adaptation and variation – not the orchard)!

Evolutionists must now go one step further since their model starts with the single tree trunk. Aside from genetic reshuffling, you must now add in a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT mechanism. To get from the original simple organism to complex humans, you must add a VAST amount of new information.

So back to: “Micro-evolution+time = macro-evolution.”

In the end we see that “micro-evolution” really wasn’t even the same mechanism as “macro-evolution”. “Micro-evolution” (as used by creationists) is adaptation and variation (via genetic reshuffling). “Macro-evolution” is a separate mechanism that adds new information to the existing genetic information. So now we can see the real equation: Genetic Reshuffling cannot equal Macro-evolution

Therefore the burden of proof is on you to show that there is another mechanism to add all the new information to turn a simple organism into humans. With all of the researchers working on this for more than 150 years it should be absolutely no sweat for you to clearly document just one major change from one species into a completely different one. So therein is my challenge, can you clearly document the specific mechanism that added the needed new information when one species become another?

Here is the final post I made on the other BLOG before inviting them to join us here.

I didn’t mean to be a whiner… just wanted to stay on topic, instead of on personal accusations. I get your point – no whining, and say something! Got it!

Mandrellian, great point when you said: “Micro-evolution+time = macro-evolution.” That makes total sense, and unfortunately that is what many creationists do say. I’ve heard them say micro-evolution is just a bunch of small changes, but they don’t add up to big evolutionary change.” We are in agreement, that’s not logical. Over a long period of time, small changes would add up to big ones — it would eventually become macro-evolution.

So do I believe that small evolutionary changes are happening? No. Let’s take a simple look at the difference between our two views:

Evolution: As Darwin first portrayed it, evolution is a tree. We start with a simple organism at the trunk and then it branches out into all the species that we see today. This is a model that DOES explain all the variety we see around us today.

Creation: This model can be portrayed as an orchard. From the start there was the appearance of all the created kinds (individual trees). Each kind has (as we still see today) a huge variety of genetic information. Each of these trees in the orchard expresses a huge amount of variation and adaptation through different reshuffling of this original genetic information. However, since it can only vary and adapt based on the original genetic information, it reaches a limit – and then stops. This model also provides an explanation of all the variety we see around us today.

So here is the classic scenario in the evolution/creation debate:

– We both make the same observation (in this case, all the varieties)
– We can both make theories to explain our observation (in this case a tree or an orchard)

So what next? Then we need to place both theories under investigation to see which best holds up to what we observe. We see adaptation and variation happening all the time. We breed different dogs to create all kinds of different ones by reshuffling their genetic code. As we specialize, we loose some of that original genetic information – and we can even get to the point of loosing the ability for breeding (as March Hare points out above). We also see example after example of organisms that adapt to their environment. So adaptation and variation are accepted concepts that we can scientifically confirm. So whose model does that fit with best? BOTH!

Okay, now here’s the rub: Creationists believe that this genetic reshuffling (variation and adaptation) is sufficient to describe all the variety we see today (based on those original orchard trees). So my model fits scientific principles on which we both agree (referring to the adaptation and variation – not the orchard)!

Evolutionists must now go one step further since their model starts with the single tree trunk. Aside from genetic reshuffling, you must now add in a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT mechanism. To get from the original simple organism to complex humans, you must add a VAST amount of new information.

So back to: “Micro-evolution+time = macro-evolution.”

In the end we see that “micro-evolution” really wasn’t even the same mechanism as “macro-evolution”. “Micro-evolution” (as used by creationists) is adaptation and variation (via genetic reshuffling). “Macro-evolution” is a separate mechanism that adds new information to the existing genetic information. So now we can see the real equation: Genetic Reshuffling cannot equal Macro-evolution

Therefore the burden of proof is on you to show that there is another mechanism to add all the new information to turn a simple organism into humans. With all of the researchers working on this for more than 150 years it should be absolutely no sweat for you to clearly document just one major change from one species into a completely different one. So therein is my challenge, can you clearly document the specific mechanism that added the needed new information when one species become another?

By the way “Abiogenesis” and “Evolution” are two different things.
In order to understand both, you need to understand chemistry.
Does PR have an understanding of chemical bonding, ionization energies, enthalpy…. etc???

Otherwise we’re rehashing old arguments. I’d actually be curious to hear a new one!

Of course, my question stands. The creationists have nothing in peer-reviewed scientific research papers. Do they think that the world’s scientific community is incompetent, or engaged in a decades-long global conspiracy to keep evidence against evolution out of the literature?

THE IMPERATIVE OF NON-STATIONARY NATURAL LAW IN RELATION TO NOAH’S FLOOD

JOHN R. BAUMGARDNER

Massive tectonic changes must have been associated with Noah’s Flood if the Flood and its after effects are correlated with the record of fossils in the earth’s sedimentary rocks. The required tectonic changes include the sinking of all the pre-Flood ocean lithosphere into the mantle, the formation and cooling of all the present-day ocean lithosphere, and displacements of the continents by thousands of kilometers. Such large-scale tectonic change cannot be accommodated within the Biblical time scale if the physical laws describing these processes have been time invariant.

So, really, PR, nothing fits “neatly” into Baumgardner’s hypothesis, unless you invoke miracles. Baumgardner’s the best you creationists have in trying to prove the Flood and it fails.

The bottom line: no global flood.

Please be so kind as to remove all references to a global flood from your homeschool material.

—PR says
So here is the classic scenario in the evolution/creation debate:

– We both make the same observation (in this case, all the varieties)
– We can both make theories to explain our observation (in this case a tree or an orchard)—

Uh, Actually, no. In creation, you can’t make a theory. Theories are based on facts and are limited to natural explanations. The supernatural is not testable. That’s where science and your religion differ. You can’t make a Theory.

TFN. You’ll really be interested in this. Is PR a Sexuality Research Denier?

I am interested in something else about Pat Roy (PR). He is a member of an organization (and historical documentary) known as the “League of Grateful Sons.” On the surface, it appears to be an organization dedicated to honoring soldiers who fought in World War II and to passing the good memories of these fine men and women on to our children today. I agree that they were what Tom Brokaw refers to as “The Greatest Generation.” My mom and dad were part of that generation, and we all honor them—no doubt wahtsoever. However, the problem is that I read on further and deeper into the description of the “League of Grateful Sons,” and sure enough—on deep in there—the Religious Right fruitcake ideology behind it was lurking in plain sight

Apparently, best I cound understand, the folks that created this organization/documentary were concerned about the famous Kinsey sexuality research and the Kinsey Reports on human sexuality that came out after World War II. This group believes that these reports were responsible for the so-called Sexual Revolution of the 1960s. (Funny, the Religious Right usually blames that on birth control pills. Wish they could get their story straight.)

Anyway, according to this organization, the sexual research data and results in the Kinsey Reports were based on interviews and research inventories largely from the many brave American soldiers coming home from World War II. The results indicated that large numbers of grown men were masturbating, sleeping around with more than one person, having sexual fantasies, and in many cases having homosexual urges. This apparently outraged the founders of the “League of Grateful Sons” because they doggone well knew that most of the men returning home from the battlefields of Europe and the Pacific were fine, upstanding Christian men who could not possibly have had those kinds of sexual things “going on inside,” as Kinsey claimed. Therefore, Kinsey was a liar and dishonest researcher who just “pretended up” his data and the results of his research so he could embarrass and tear down the greatest generation—and with the evil in his heart—create a Sexual Revolution that would destroy the moral fiber of America and bring her down. Therefore, the “League of Gratetful Sons” was created to expose this nationwide liberal conspiracy, to deny the veracity of Kinsey and his research, and to reclaim the memory of World War II veterans as fine Christian men (who almost never did, said, or thought anything sexually impure or unChristian).

Sound familiar? Remind you of David Barton and his ilk, who would rewrite American history to make our children believe that our founding fathers were all righteous and flawless Christian Neo-Fundamentalists—when real historians know that this is not true.

Holocaust deniers. Evolution deniers. Separation of church and state deniers. American history deniers. And now—Sexuality Research Deniers? Where does it all end?

Sorry, PR, but the modern theory of evolution is the most well-supported theory in science. There are thousands of books and papers on the subject not to mention a plethora of info on the Internet to answer any question you have.

We are not here to educate you on evolution. You can do that on your own.

Your purpose here is to demonstrate to us creation science that supports your claims. Why you don’t just throw in the towel and say that God can do anything therefore anything is possible, I don’t know.

However, while you are correcting the Jonathan Park study guides to remove the fictional global flood references, there’s something else you need to address.

Throughout your study guide you refer to every kind of scientist as an evolutionist. For example, in study guide Number Two you remark that evolutionists believe that cave formations take thousands of years. No, that’s wrong. Evolutionists don’t say that at all. Geologists say that. You really need to clean that up. Evolutionist is not synonymous to scientist. There are many different kinds of scientists and even home schooled children should be taught that.

Ever generous soul I am, I’d be glad to review your corrected study guides when you have proof copies available.

“With all of the researchers working on this for more than 150 years it should be absolutely no sweat for you to clearly document just one major change from one species into a completely different one. So therein is my challenge, can you clearly document the specific mechanism that added the needed new information when one species become another?”

All of those transitional species studies were most likely produced by atheist scientists. Because the Holy Spirit does not dwell within them, whatever science they do will naturally come to an incorrect result—no matter how hard they try. Therefore, those findings are necessarily all incorrect. However, if the Holy Spirit were to indwell them, the scales would fall from their eyes, and they would immediately have revealed to them that all their research is all wrong and that the world is really only about 6000 years old.

Science is culturally, temporally and even species independent. Any intelligence can discover scientific theories, test them and confirm/disprove them. It is not linked to a given culture, time or even planet.

Religion is a given set of rules (we can argue over whether it was given by the creator or not later) and ‘facts’ that are very specific to a given time and culture – albeit it adapts over the centuries – and certainly only available to one species on one planet as we are made in God’s image.

If any religion were true various cultures would have independently discovered the same truth but this has not happened – and taking some of your basic tenets from neighboring societies is not independently discovering them! If any science were true then those parts would have been discovered by different cultures over time. This has happened!

If God wants humans to know the truth and live by it, why did He only let people 2,000 – 1,800 years ago write about it? Why not allow people today access to His truth and stop many of the idiotic conflicts we have over what His word actually is?

And if the Bible is the inerrant word of God why don’t people campaign against Red Lobsters as much as gay marriage? (If you don’t know this reference look up man lying with a man as a woman being an abomination and then read the next verse!)

I asked you guys to simply explain how there has been enough information added (by non-intelligent) processes to turn the original simple organism into complex humans. Here is what I got from you:

Abiogenesis and Evolution are two different things… got that! So let’s just focus on evolution — the addition of enough new info to cause a simple organism to become complex humans.

I got a general link to Talk Origins… that is not a specific answer to my question.

I was reminded again of how unscientific I am… okay…

A tangent about League of Grateful Sons…

An offer to review my Study Guides… (I mean this in all seriousness, Doc Bill, I may actually take you up on this. I know it’s hard to hear inflections in text, but I sincerely want to make sure I am representing evolution correctly. How do you and I communicate directly? I’m not sure I want to publicly post all my personal info here.)

Then keddaw brings up religion which I said I wouldn’t address.

So this is interesting to me. If it were me making these kinds of posts, I would be accused of skirting the issue, making side-tangents, and not “showing” the case.

PHarvey gave me two links. As far as I can tell (with a quick scan of these articles), both of them do a great job documenting adaptation, variation, and genetic loss as a result of mutation. One of the articles mentions that a plant expressed enough variety that it became a new species of plant. First of all, as you know, I have no problem with any of these concepts. The problem is they totally failed to explain the mechanism (non-intelligent) that added enough genetic information to turn a simple organism into a complex human.

So here comes the same challenge… don’t point me to a link (I have not been doing that on my side) or tell me that 150 years of science proves it… I want to hear it from you. Can someone point to a specific example of how enough new genetic info was added so one animal became another (something other than a plant varying enough to get a new species name – or mutated fruit flies that are still deformed fruit flies)? With the billions of changes that have supposedly happened, shouldn’t you be able to provide me with at least hundreds of simple, clear examples of a dramatic transition from one animal to the next? I’ll wait to see what happens…

Just FYI, I have just received an email back from Dr. Baumgardner about his above quote. It is a lengthy email, so it will take me a while to digest it all. Just wanted to let you know I was following-up on this issue you raised, so I can better understand the questions you raised.

PR writes: “don’t point me to a link (I have not been doing that on my side) or tell me that 150 years of science proves it.”

Again with all due respect, you are taking the lazy way out. Your desire to have everything about evolutionary theory boiled down into a paragraph in a blog is absurd, and it represents precisely the pseudoscientific approach evolution deniers take toward the issue. You can’t be bothered to conduct real research and publish it in peer-reviewed journals for scientists who actually study this and know something about it, so you create propaganda programs for radio audiences. You can’t be bothered actually to learn about the science, so you demand that someone on a blog boil it down for you. Well, no. Please do the hard work that real scientists have been doing for 150 years. Perhaps if you do, you will stop trying to dumb down the science education of schoolchildren — although we’re not holding our breath.

The fossil record is irrelevant to the theory of evolution. So is morphology.

The ability to map a genome and read its contents has progressed even farther than I imagined and I try to keep abreast on the subject! In an interview with Richard Dawkins, Craig Venter explains that the genomes of thousands of organisms have been read and catalogued. He says you can read the “tree of life” directly in the code without ever looking at a fossil or an animal or plant for that matter.

Because of common ancestry the conserved, but unused, strings of “junk DNA” complete clades can be produced in minutes. The relationships between organisms (plants, animals, bacteria, viruses, fungi, etc) are all right there in the genomes.

Fascinating stuff. It’s a long interview, 52 minutes uncut, but very, very interesting.

PR Says:
“PHarvey gave me two links. As far as I can tell (with a quick scan of these articles), both of them do a great job documenting adaptation, variation, and genetic loss as a result of mutation. One of the articles mentions that a plant expressed enough variety that it became a new species of plant. First of all, as you know, I have no problem with any of these concepts. The problem is they totally failed to explain the mechanism (non-intelligent) that added enough genetic information to turn a simple organism into a complex human. ”

If figured PR might do this. He gets a legitmate scienctific answer to his specific question (a question that is covered and answered even in good high school biology texts), with references, and he then pronounces they failed to answer the question.

PR, if you will bother to read the above links, you will see the mechanisms for speciation are:
1. Speciations Involving Polyploidy, Hybridization or Hybridization Followed by Polyploidization and
2. Speciations in Plant Species not Involving Hybridization or Polyploidy
3. Speciation Through Host Race Differentiation
4. Speciation Through Cytoplasmic Incompatability Resulting from the Presence of a Parasite or Symbiont
5. and several more.

Speciation occurs all the time. These are but only a few of hundreds of specaition events we know about. There are many more that we have never discovered.

If you want to know the details of these mechanisms you may research each mechanism yourself. The references are given for you.

But if you think that explaining biology is easy or can be done in a couple of paragraphs on a blog you are niave and unreasonable.

I doubt you have the eduational background to understand the indepth research which requires a mastery of genetics, biochemistry, organic chemistry, cell physiology, and comparative anatomy, etc. just to give you an educational foundation to allow you to understand the research.

The links I provided completely answer your question.

Your claim that I didn’t answer your question makes you look foolish.

I don’t know who you think your fooling. Its no one on this blog.

So, are you ever going to give us the science you promised supporting creationism or are you going to continue to dodge your commitment?

PR Says:
“Can someone point to a specific example of how enough new genetic info was added so one animal became another (something other than a plant varying enough to get a new species name – or mutated fruit flies that are still deformed fruit flies)? With the billions of changes that have supposedly happened, shouldn’t you be able to provide me with at least hundreds of simple, clear examples of a dramatic transition from one animal to the next? I’ll wait to see what happens…”

Again, PR doesn’t get it. Evolution doesn’t occur in big steps. It occurs in tiny changes that accumulate from generation to generation. Just as the links I provided explain. Evolution doesn’t occur in “dramatic transition(s) from one animal to the next.”

Just the fact that one day offspring won’t be able to mate with individuals from a few generations back is a big step for biology.

The DNA replication process inside the cell is inherently imperfect and produces errors all by itself. Most of these errors are harmless and serve to build genetic diversity. Some of these errors are deliterious. And some of the harmless errors will serve to give the organism a survival advantage in the right environment.

Put another way. PHarvey is saying that the operations within cells are part of this universe and thus subject to the various degrees of randomness and nonrandomness that exist in this dimension of existence. The changes that result can be beneficial or detrimental, depending on the situation. One man’s junk is another mans’s treasure.

PR – apologies, I brought religion into it, but what else do you call the avoidance of science? I thought the point I made was valid though.

For humans to get to the ‘top of the evolutionary tree*’ we had to… diversify from reptiles; avoid being said reptiles’ lunch; survive the thing that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs; evolve faster and better than other animals after the demise of the lizards; survive ice ages; out compete the other hominids; and a multitude of other improbable acts and events.

So, I cannot accept your wish for people to explain humans when any number of retroviruses or bacteria have a much greater claim to be the most ‘evolved’ creatures on earth. Just a thought.

* we are not top. We have pathetic eyesight compared to hawks, owls etc. our reactions are poor compared to mongeese etc. we are generally quite average at most things apart from intelligence.

Incredible video with Craig Venter! However, you know how I see it from my perspective… these guys are spending millions of bucks and the best scientists to understand the complexity of the software of life. Software that creates its own hardware – that is amazing! Using man’s intelligence, how far have we gotten writing ORIGINAL code that designs its own hardware? You are claiming that software wrote itself through non-intelligent processes. To me it’s more scientific to claim that intelligent code points to intelligence rather than to say intelligent code points to non-intelligence!

PHarvey, You claim that I ignore your evidence, but all you did was point me to links. I know there are tons of journals that explain your side. But I wanted to see if someone here could simply state your case for how we’ve gained all the genetic material to go from the simple organism to complex humans.

Okay to say it is too complex to state in a couple of paragraphs, is just ducking it in my opinion. How does every science journal publication begin? With a short abstract. Give me the short abstract in your own words…

Doc Bill,

I want to watch the longer video – looks like interesting stuff. Thank you for passing it on.

PHarvey,

You said that I misunderstand evolution – that it doesn’t happen in big steps… no actually I get that (unless you subscribe to Punk Eq, I guess). It is supposedly of billions of small changes over long periods of time. I know that. But I just want someone to simply layout how we do cross a major change over long periods of time (what mechanism adds all that info?)

PHarvey,

Thank you for finally taking a shot at it on your 4:23 comment. You said:

1. The DNA replication process inside the cell is inherently imperfect and produces errors all by itself. Most of these errors are harmless and serve to build genetic diversity. Some of these errors are deliterious. And some of the harmless errors will serve to give the organism a survival advantage in the right environment.
I’ll address this in my next post.

Keddaw,

No problem bringing in religion – just want to make it clear that I have not.

You made some interesting points that I feel cause some problems for you. But I don’t know for sure, since I have not ever discussed this specific topic with an evolutionist before.

You say that we are not at the top? That brings a couple of questions to my mind (I’m sincerely asking since I don’t have a clue what you’ll answer):

1. Even if we are not at the top, do you believe we are the most recent? If your answer is “no”, then which species is?
2. You mentioned our poor eyesight, slow reactions, etc – you obviously believe that if we are the most recent, that natural selection will at times choose the “less fit” in some cases (or are you saying that we are overall the most fit when you put intelligence back in the equation)?
3. Do you believe as A WHOLE that humans are superior to the rest of the animals? If your answer is “no”, are you telling me that the evolutionary process is moving backward right now?
4. When you say that retroviruses and bacteria to be the most “evolved” on earth. Can you explain what you mean by that? Do you mean in OVERALL ability to survive? If so, isn’t that again going in the opposite direction that should be dictated by natural selection?

Look, I’m trying to understand what mechanism you have for the addition of genetic material – and you guys have not yet clearly and simply made the case. For just a minute, take a look through my eyes… this is the pillar of evolution, and I haven’t heard a clear presentation of how it works. Okay, I take that back…PHarvey did a good job (Thank you PHarvey – I appreciate it – it comes the closest to what I was looking for). And yet I feel that what he stated still does not provide the mechanism for the addition of info needed in the genome.

By the way, tonight I’m heading out of town for a while again. I’ll post again before I leave, but I know whenever leave for a while, you guys think I’m sitting in the corner sucking my thumb. So I want to tell you in advance, I think that after tonight, I’ll end my posts. It’s been a week. I’ve got to get on with other things!

Doc Bill, you offered (don’t know if you meant it) to review my stuff. I would like evolutionists to check out my stuff before it goes public. I sincerely want to represent your views correctly (even though I disagree). It will be a long time before I’m producing more materials, but would you guys be open to letting me post stuff from time to time so you can bag on it? Sounds like fun for you – and help me represent evolution more accurately.

1. The DNA replication process inside the cell is inherently imperfect and produces errors all by itself. Most of these errors are harmless and serve to build genetic diversity. Some of these errors are deliterious. And some of the harmless errors will serve to give the organism a survival advantage in the right environment.
I feel that you have come the closest to take me up on my challenge to provide the mechanism for how we can add info to the genome to turn a simple organism into complex humans.

This comes from an email I just wrote to someone else…

Here are a few problems:

1. Mutations Cannot Provide Beneficial Change
a. Almost ALL mutations are near-neutral. They do not have any real effect on the over-all fitness of an organism. Further, they do not play a role in natural selection.
b. The next most common mutation is negative. As a matter of fact, almost every mutation results in a loss of information. These mutations are negative to an organism – and lead to entropy, not better structures. As a matter of fact, it is well know that when an animals’ population reaches a significant decline in its gene-pool that it is headed for extinction. We see genetic deterioration all around us. This is a MAJOR problem for evolution that says that the genome is increasing in complexity and superiority.
c. There are only a few mutations (inproportion to bad) that anyone could even interpret as being beneficial. So here’s the problem:
i. Dr. John Sanford (the creation scientists who invented the gene gun) has estimated that there are one million negative mutations for every beneficial one! Just that alone is a problem. It means that if we don’t even consider all the other problems, that there’s one positive change for every one million. Does that fit better with the idea that things are getting increasingly better? Or that it has been able to add enough positive change to turn a single cell into a complex human?
ii. Next, we know that these mutations cannot work independently of each other. The genome exists in large linkage blocks. So even a beneficial mutation cannot effect a beneficial change – because it’s linked to many more negative mutations.
iii. Even if a beneficial mutations could affect a positive change… think about it, it would be so small that how would Natural Selection even be able to operate upon it? As a matter of fact, there is the Zone of No Selection. These are neutral, beneficial, and negative mutations that are so insignificant that natural selection does not even act upon them. Further, it’s been shown that ALL beneficial mutations fall into the Zone of No Selection (as do most negative mutations). However, there are so many more negative mutations that their cumulative affect can add up to a significant of change that can be worked on by selection.
d. Natural Selection Cannot Support Evolution
i. As we see above, negative mutations so far outweigh beneficial ones, that Natural Selection would have to work at an almost perfect efficiency to eliminate the bad and favor the good. But we’ve already seen that it can’t even select for beneficial mutations.
ii. Next, we OBSERVE that Natural Selection actually works the opposite of evolution. The theory says that NS will favor the mutant, letting the rest of the population die out. In reality here is what we see: mutations cause a loss of information, rendering a mutant less fit to survive. Then NS kills of the mutant, providing stability to the population. So instead of driving evolution forward as in the text books, what we really see is that NS tend to emphasize status quo in a population.
iii. Natural Selection is working on the organism as a whole. It cannot pick and choose nucleotides on their own specific function – only on the animal as a whole. However, to meet the criteria of evolutionary theory, it would have to be efficiently thinking through the design of every nucleotide, instead of looking at fitness as a whole.
iv. Further, there is too much “noise” for natural selection to work. This “genetic noise” drowns out NS’s ability to select. Here are a few examples of genetic noise:
1. Survival of the Fittest. Does NS really select on fitness alone? Think about a group of fish swimming in the ocean. Then a whale swims up and gulps down half of them. Was it survival of the fittest? No. It was survival of the “luckiest”. This is genetic noise – it interferes with Natural Selection.
2. Environmental Factors. What about a tree that drops seeds – some fall on the road, others on good soil. Again, was it the most fit that reproduced?
3. Environment to Genome Interaction. What about a plant that is genetically superior in every way – except for one… it cannot handle over-watering. However, the plant next to it is genetically inferior – except it can handle more water. During a heavy rain season which survived, the superior or the less fit?
4. Natural Selection Plays Small Role. Again, Dr. Sanford and others have estimated that Natural Selection actually plays 1% of the role in the influences that determine variation.

With all of the above, I fail to see how mutations could possible create all of the highly designed (appearance of design) animal world in which things are so incredible fine-tuned to work.

This is why I reject your theory. Because you are trying to use mutations and control genes (which show amazing design in my opinion) — and other whimpy mechanisms to try and explain how a single-cell became this complex biological kingdom!

I my opinion, it’s like trying to fill the Pacific Ocean with an eye dropper! You are using small, insignificant mechanisms to try and create all the amazing variety and apparent design we see out there. To do that, you need a major mechanism — not what you’ve provided me so far.

So you make up for it with time. You say, “yes, they may make very small changes — but over a very long period of time they’ll add up to something big”.

No, there’s even a problem with that! As we see above, time is actually your enemy. What we actually observe is a deterioration of the genome, not an increase in information.

A couple of people have mentioned retroviruses and junk DNA. Would you not say yourselves that is an increase of entropy in our genome? By your own words you state the problem, things are getting worse, not better.

Thank you for such a superb demonstration of willful ignorance and stupid on purpose. By the way, those aren’t my words, rather they’re convicted felon now serving time in prison and creationist Kent Hovind’s.

“Zone of No Selection,” eh? That’s a new one, but as creationists I grant that you certainly do create stuff.

OK, getting back to the topic of this thread, PR has demonstrated amply the results of teaching creationism in public school and why we should fight tooth and nail to prevent that from happening. Creationism has no theory and is no alternative to explaining the world we live in. The entire thesis of the Jonathan Park series and the goal of McLeroy’s crusade is to cast doubt on science and knowledge; to turn children’s minds away from doubt and critical thinking.

At the end of the short video below prepare to be impressed by what is achieved by undergraduates in biology using tools that didn’t exist more than 5 years ago.

We have to ask ourselves this question. Do we want our children to harness the power of biology, science and technology for the betterment of mankind, or do we want them picketing libraries, burning Harry Potter books?

Zone of No Selection… These actually weren’t words from Kent Hovind, but from Dr. John Sanford, creator of the Gene Gun. He was the one who built part of the foundation that many of these guys on the videos are building upon. I would say he understands genetics, no (even if you disagree with his origins model, don’t you give credit for being the first to invent the way to insert genetic material into the genome? Or must you discredit all scientific accomplishments if they do not accept the majority thought on origins)?

Besides, do you not agree (even though the term is foreign to you), that on a bell curve of bad mutations to good, that there has to be a zone of no selection? In other words, natural selection cannot operate on neutral or near-neutral mutations, right? So you may laugh at the term, but I think you would agree with the concept.

The last video link… awesome! Again, what an amazingly complex genetic code – and how cool that we are able to use our intelligence to begin to decode it – and now moving into the stages of trying to manipulate it using our new technology.

I just realized you weren’t crediting Zone of No Selection to Kent. Gotcha…

By the way, the Zone of No Selection came from Dr. Motoo Kimura — a well know evolutionist (theoretical population genetics). So you may laugh at creationists for creating new stuff! But whoops, it actually was a concept by a very well-know and accepted evolutionist!

Hey everybody! Look here! He finally did it. PR gave a classic creationist explanation in his last post that we have heard many times before that was rejected by science decades ago, and at the same time showed his profound ignorance of even high school level biology.

PR,

I don ‘t think you understand. I am not going to be sucked into a blog-fight where I defend evolution and you provide a creationist answer with no scientific basis. This is supposed to be about you providing legitimate science to support creationism. So far you have not provided any.

The evidence for evolution is voluminous and overwhelming and it is the consensus of 150 of research by the worlds science bodies. I don’t have to defend it. You can pick up any biology text and read to any level of evidence and explanation about evolution. It’s obvious you never have. And it is completely inappropriate (impossible) to attempt to summarize an entire genetics and biochemistry text explaining gene creation and modification on a blog site.

You made so many false claims in your last post that I’m not going to attempt to debunk them all except to say that you are wrong on every point you made.

Fortunately, creationists keep making so many of the same false claims so often that a web site was created to store the answers to them so we literate types don’t have to recreate the wheel each time a creationist makes an ignorant claim.

You keep asking what mechanisms exist for the creation of genetic material. If you had ever taken a decent biology course you would know. For starters, try gene duplication and tandem repeats. You may Google them and learn about these mechanisms. There are others. Do some simple research and learn what they are.

Your claim that the genome is deteriorating is false… and laughable.

The Index to Creationist Claims has a section of responses that pretty much debunks the claims you made in your last post. Even though you don’t links, you will just have to read….and comprehend.

• CB100: Genetics
• CB100. Mutations are rare.
• CB101. Most mutations are harmful.
• CB101.1. Mutations are accidents; things do not get built by accident.
• CB101.2. Mutations do not produce new features.
• CB102. Mutations do not add information.
• CB102.1. Dawkins could not give an example of increasing information.
• CB110. Microevolution selects only existing variation.
• CB120. Genetic load from mutations would make populations unviable.
• CB121. The cost of natural selection is prohibitive (Haldane’s dilemma).

And of course, each section has scholarly references.

Even if you were successful at disproving evolution, it would not mean that creationism was correct. Proving one to be false does not make the other one true. There could be a 3rd explanation. So if you want to prove creationism, you must provide legitimate science to support it.

This is as far as I will go down the path of defending evolution as you try to make ignorant claims against it.

PR says
“Besides, do you not agree (even though the term is foreign to you), that on a bell curve of bad mutations to good, that there has to be a zone of no selection? In other words, natural selection cannot operate on neutral or near-neutral mutations, right? So you may laugh at the term, but I think you would agree with the concept.”

PR,
Your lack of knowledge of basic biology is profound. Neutral mutations may turn beneficial if the environment changes. A mutation that provides no advantage in one environment may provide a survival advantage in another. Have you ever notices how people liveing toward the poles have shorter stocker boides and those at eqitorial regions have longer thinner bodies?

If a neutral mutation provides a beneficial role in NS, then it IS a beneficial mutation. I am referring to mutations that are ever so slight that there is no way that NS can even act upon them. Would you not agree that those do exist?

As far as people living at the poles, I would attribute that to adaptation through recombining of genetic material that already existed in the genome – and eventual loss of genetic info as they specialize. I don’t have a problem with that.

As mentioned above, there are great examples of variation and adaptation everywhere. What seems to be lacking is the ability to build the highly complex genome (like Doc Bill keeps demonstrating with his videos) but from nothing with non-intelligent processes.

Even a better example. Homo Sapiens evolved around equatorial Africa. The first peopel were very dark skinned (black). Any mutation for lighter skin was a liability and was selected against.

As people moved north, ligter skin was required so that enough light was recieed to keep producing vitamen D, to prevent rickets. genes for lighter skin became prevalent in the population. Genes for darker skin were selected against.

Every notice how Norweigens are almost alibino? There is a reason for that.

Neutral mutations may prove beneficial as the environment changes. That is why a great deal of genetic diversity in the gene pool is required for a species to survive long term.

Any animal breeder knows natural selection is real. My friend and neighbor breeds Javanese and Balinese cats. She knows (and I have observed!) that some mothers are just better mothers than others. Without human intervention, the kittens of “bad” mothers aren’t likely to survive. I suppose a creationist would say that God speaks to some mothers and tells them how to mother their kittens properly and does not speak to other mothers and thus does not instruct them on how to care for their kittens. So those kittens tend not to survive. Awesome God, eh?

As for the flood, the creationist story does not add up. Their explanation for where that much water came from and where it all went is flimsy and insufficient.

In addition, they fail to explain how animals that exist only in the Americas and Australia swam across oceans to get to wherever the Ark was built. Nor do they explain how those animals crossed oceans to get back to their native homelands. Like, duh, I didn’t know a kangaroo can swim across oceans. If ‘roos were able to do so at one time but have since lost their aquatic ability, that would be more supportive of evoluation, not less.

And notice creationists STILL refuse to explain a talking snake and a talking donkey, questions I raised months ago here!

In addition, I am doubtful that a structure built to the dimensions of the Ark specified in the Bible would be large enough to house two of each species of animal contemporary of that time. On top of that, where the heck was enough food and water for everyone stored? And what the heck did the humans do with all that waste product, that of the animals and of themselves?

Interestingly, Dr. Bob Ballard from Woods Hole, has found evidence of a great flood originating from the Black Sea and spilling over into the Tigris/Euphrates river valleys that occured around 6,000 years ago. Dr. Ballard calculated that the waters rose by approximately 1 mile per day, allowing for enough people to escape and tell the story which was handed down orally for generations. It is understandable to see why the people of that time might have assumed this disaster was a worldwide event. But, of course, Dr. Ballard is a scientist and makes no such crazy suggestion that the flood was worldwide.

Creationists are just too mentally lazy to study cell biology for two years. They are simple-minded and demand simple, one- sentence answers. Like, for example, e = mc2. Or: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and earth.” Simple. Slam bam, thank you ma’ame. It’s inhumane to expect them to do actual thinking, learning, and lab time.

I understand what you’re saying, but again, I think I attribute the differences for Africans and Norwegians as adaptations based on the genetic information that already existed – its like as you said — based on environmental changes. I do not need to invoke macroevolution to explain this.

Charles,

Sorry that I’ve frustrated you… but your worries are over my friend, I’m outta here! Good luck with that Nobel Prize!

By the way, I think we all knew what to expect. I didn’t really expect any of you to fall down on your knees and pray to receive Jesus as your Savior while typing the prayer out live on your keyboard. Likewise, I’m guessing you guys didn’t expect me to recant my faith and book last minute tickets to attend the Darwin Festival this week in Cambridge.

But don’t take this as a total failure. I took a few things away from these discussions:

1. We’ve had a few exchanges that I will be thinking through for a while to come. I will follow up on many things you mentioned.

2. I learned a bit more about how evolutionists think – and that’s a good thing, right?

3. It was a great reminder that I need to always do my best to represent evolution the best I can when I speak of it on the broadcast (even if I disagree with it).

4. Doc Bill has encouraged me to look further into the water issue for a global flood.

5. And finally, it kept us all from watching more mindless dribble on TV!

So I’m walking away with something – I hope you are too!

Finally, I want to thank you for holding back the mean personal attacks. I asked you guys to play fair – and you did it!

By the way, maybe that’s a lesson to walk away with. When debating someone who disagrees with you, it is ALWAYS much more effective to deal with the issues than to make unfounded bashes on your opponent. Otherwise it communicates weakness in your arguments.

And I guess that is my last thought… I know I have frustrated some of you to no end… but why? Aren’t we all free to investigate the world around us – without agreeing? As a matter of fact, scientific history is made up of people who did not accept the PC thinking – and went against the crowd. Sometimes right – and sometimes wrong. But if we don’t give each other the freedom in science to come at things from different perspectives – then I think we’ll miss out on some pretty important discoveries! Furthermore, this is America, where we’re free to disagree. I’d fight for your right to call my ideas wrong – wouldn’t you do the same for me?

One last thing. You said:
“By the way, I think we all knew what to expect. I didn’t really expect any of you to fall down on your knees and pray to receive Jesus as your Savior while typing the prayer out live on your keyboard. Likewise, I’m guessing you guys didn’t expect me to recant my faith and book last minute tickets to attend the Darwin Festival this week in Cambridge.”

Most Christians have no problems being Christian and understanding evolution as fact. It is only you ultra fundamentalist types that think the two are mutually exclusive.

“By the way, maybe that’s a lesson to walk away with. When debating someone who disagrees with you, it is ALWAYS much more effective to deal with the issues than to make unfounded bashes on your opponent. Otherwise it communicates weakness in your arguments.”

If that’s true, the Religious Right must have some of the weakest arguments ever conceived.

PR says
–PHarvey, You claim that I ignore your evidence, but all you did was point me to links. I know there are tons of journals that explain your side. But I wanted to see if someone here could simply state your case for how we’ve gained all the genetic material to go from the simple organism to complex humans.–

Have you ever heard of meiosis??? At times during the production of gametes (Metaphase-Anaphase) an error could occur during the division and separation of the ploidy. This can add or subtract genetic material (aka “Nondisjunction”). This is a very simplistic explanation of how genetic material can increase/decrease. As a result, novel material could be acquired and may/may not be beneficial for the organism.

“My name is Pat Roy. As a fellow brother in Christ I’m concerned about our Nation, so I hope you’ll “hear me out.” I was recently shocked to hear that over 88% of Christian students will deny their faith by the time they graduate from college! What a startling statistic!”

COMMENT: From a faith perspective, it is very sad because the children are taught from their earliest days that they must reject Jesus Christ if they ever discover that Christian fundamentalism is flawed. Eighty-eight percent discover that it is indeed flawed, and many reject Jesus just as the leaders of their peculiar faith have commanded them to do. However, I am not at all sure that Jesus plans to reject them. I find it more probable that he would reject the leaders who set the kids up with this nonsense. I plan on bringing Hershey bars, marshmallows, and graham crackers to the final judgment. When Christian Neo-Fundamentalism gets thrown into the Lake of Fire, Jesus and I are going to celebrate with s’mores.

“Why are we failing to give them a foundation that will weather the rough storms of life? Furthermore, others in Christ suffer from a similar problem. They don’t live like their faith is real – often carrying around both Christian and humanistic worldviews at the same time. They switch between these two competing worldviews, depending on which serves them best at the moment. I would like to suggest that one of the major attacks against our faith has been that for years, Christians have been intimidated by secular science. While our Churches teach about creation one day a week, our schools, movies, TV shows, and media all around us teach the evolutionary worldview – that there is no God. Christians — wanting to be relevant – don’t want to ignore science – and yet fail to understand how modern discoveries fit with the Bible. Soon Christians try to blend these two opposing worldviews, or flip-flop between the two, or eventually deny their faith (like our college students). This is why the creation/evolution debate has become one of the most popular issues of our times.”

COMMENT: Pat Roy believes that it is impossible to accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and still understand the scientific reality of evolution. He claims that the evolutionary worldview is that THERE IS NO GOD. That’s the biggest slice of baloney that I have seen in a long time because of the millions of Christians (like me) who have no probems with resolving evolution and the Christian faith. However, one has to understand the Christian fundamentalist mindset. In their minds, all of those other Christians are not really Christians. They just write them off as apostates who have abandoned the faith so they can stand high and alone on their cube of fundamentalist ignorance.

“As a Christian leader, are you addressing this subject in your Church? For years I have spoken to many Churches and groups. It is a thrill to see the audiences eyes filled with excitement as they hear the over-whelming scientific evidence that is in harmony with the Bible. For the first time, many Christians realize they no longer need to carry around two opposing worldviews. Many come to the conclusion that their faith is not a blind one, but build on the evidence – and the truth of God’s Word! I have personally seen college students come away with a strong foundation that carries them through their years of school.”

COMMENT: He means in harmony with one particular and quite narrow interpretation of the Bible. The truth of the matter is that churches are populated with people from all walks of life just like society in general. If anyone has seen a bell curve, most of the congregations of these churches are made up of C-average high school diplomates (or worse). These people are intellectually incapable of understanding the complex scientific aspects of evolution. All Pat Roy has to do is feed them his creation science nonsense, and they will lap it up like dogs. I know these people. Some of them are in my own family. Here is what they would say, “Pat Roy seems like such a nice, clean-cut young man. I don’t understand hardly anything he is saying about evolution and creation science. He says that he follows Jesus; therefore, whatever he is saying must somehow be correct. Right?” One Sunday morning about 23 years ago, my Baptist pastor was in a really bad mood when sermon time came, and he let go on the congregation with a tirade about their general ignorance—essentially making the same kind of point that I just did above. So, no Pat Roy. You are not harmonizing anything. All you are doing is feeding ignorance to an audience populated by the ignorant—and that ignorant audience is more than willing to go along with whatever you say simply because you invoke the name of “Jesus.” You could spend 10 minutes preaching to them a totally MADE UP STORY about science, American history, or even the Bible. Try it sometime just for fun—pure fiction. They will sit there like dolts and “Amen brother” you the whole way through the story.

“I truly believe that the creation message has the power to change lives – and build the faith of your congregation. For that reason, three of us have united to get this life-changing message to as many churches as possible!”

COMMENT: The person of Jesus Christ changes lives—not your creation message. To the extent that your literalist perspective on creation is incorrect and that creation science itself is one hugely concocted lie, I doubt that it has the power to change anything for the good. God does not honor falsehoods. This is one reason that 88 percent of your kids are walking away from your churches. If there were any power or truth in the creation science message, that 88 percent would be walking into your church instead of fleeing from it. They know the church position on creation science. It is all that they have ever known since they were babies. Your arguments have been around for decades. Your kids are walking because they have heard your ridiculous arguments 100 times already and know that they are full of crap. Wake up!!!

“We have formed a new project called CreationWorks. We are Creation Speakers: John Rajca — Served as the museum curator for the Institute for Creation Research for 19 years. He has spoken all around the nation as well as to several thousand people a year through guided tours of the museum. Duane Riffenburgh — Has been a dedicated home schooling father for the past 18 years and an ardent creationist for 15. He has preached in the Baptist mission on Skid Row in Los Angeles and lectured to churches and Bible study groups throughout Southern California . Pat Roy — A committed creationist, Pat worked for the Institute for Creation research for over 12 years. In that time, he and his team took some of the most complex scientific proofs for creation and translated them into everyday language and concepts. He has spoken to churches and groups of all ages. We would like to assist you in bringing some powerful Creation speakers to your congregation. We can address issues like: Dinosaurs and the Bible Scientific Evidence Against Evolution Scientific Evidence for the Biblical Account Geologic Evidence for the Worldwide Flood Resolving Secular Science with the Scriptures Evolutions Impact on Society And many more! Our desire is to encourage as many Christians as possible. For that reason, we are not charging an honorarium. Instead, we simply ask that you cover travel cost and take a love offering to pay for some of our expenses to get the message out to others. And since one of speakers may be close by, travel expenses may only include a small amount of gas! For more information, please email back to PRoy@CreationWorks.biz, or visit our website: http://www.CreationWorks.biz. Please free to call me at (530)877-5756. May the Lord continue to bless you in your work for Him! Pat Roy , CreationWorks.”

COMMENT: Well, Pat Roy. I am glad to know that you and your friends are not bilking your audiences like Jim and Tammy did. Fortunately, it is not too late for you. I would urge you to fall onto your knees in prayer and repent of the sin of creation science and the worse sin of Christian fundamentalism—which is a modern day form of 1st century legalism heresy that gives lip service to the love of Jesus Christ and his grace but in actuality denies their power and abandons them in this life. Jesus spoke of you when he said, “These people honor me with their lips but their hearts are far from me.” You see. He understood. The Christian faith is not about turning the Bible into a regimen of rules and putting people onto the grinding treadmill of “do I measure up today.” There is no such thing as measuring up in this life. That is what the Apostle Paul meant when he said that the way of the law is the way of death. All that way can produce is feelings of guilt and recrimination day in and day out—and abject fear of God. You cannot love anything or anyone that scares you to death. It is impossible. The real Chritian faith is all about the heart, forgiveness, love, and peace—not the peace you get from falsely believing that you somehow measured up to the law better than usual on Tuesday. It is the peace that passes all understanding—the peace a child has when it goes to sleep in the arms of loving parents that the child trusts and does not fear. You and year friends are welcome to come down to the United Methodist Church and find that peace—and find the real Jesus too. We would be happy to have you. Jesus would too. He’s been wanting you to get off that treadmill of internal fear and incessant self-recrimination for a very long time. When you step off that treadmill, as you one day will, I hope you will have enough good sense to run to the real Jesus at another church for once rather than obey your fundamentalist leadership’s insistence that you must reject him.

“While our Churches teach about creation one day a week, our schools, movies, TV shows, and media all around us teach the evolutionary worldview – that there is no God. ”

As you pointed out long ago and we all know very well now, evolution, to people like PR, means their god can’t exist. So they will deny it to the bitter end, and they will denounce the mountain of evidence in front of them.

I’d have more respect for him if he’d just say, “Oh, evolution is all a big hoax by Satan,” rather than trying all the BS he tried above. Being deluded is one thing, but then he lumps dishonesty on top of it.

In my opinion, people like Pat are far worse than Jim or Tammy Faye, in that they represent a very real danger to our global civilization, and probably to the continuity of our species. The Bakkers simply stole a few bucks (although I’m not so sure they were lying when they said that they weren’t aware of much of what was going on in their organization).

I’m also a little more charitable to Jim and Tammy Faye than I am to other other evangelical spokespeople. My understanding is that they were more welcoming to and less judgmental of gay people than were the vast majority of their peers, and they tended to downplay somewhat the issue of eternal damnation.

Furthermore, people like Pat rarely, if ever, change. I don’t believe they *can* change. I suspect that authoritarianism is largely neurologically-based, a maladaptive trait that it would be in our best interest to breed out of the genome – which, of course, we won’t be given the opportunity to do.

Having said that, I sincerely wish that all moderate to progressive Christians were as vocal in their condemnation of fundamentalism as you have been here. A large part of the reason that they’ve been able to commandeer our society to the degree they have is that liberal Christians have kept silent, being unwilling to publicly criticize their “brothers and sisters in Christ”. I find it infuriating. In your terminology, I suppose it would be a “sin of omission”, or of “complicity”. In any case, they bear, in my opinion, the brunt of the responsibility for the misery we’re currently experiencing, and will continue to experience in the coming years.

Well folks. It’s been a long week. Everyone exhale. It’s time to start preparing for the great SBOE social studies fight. If you thought science was fun, this one is going to be a doozy.

Happy July 4th (Independence Day) to TFN and everyone here!!!!!

And by the way, the History Channel series entitled “The Founding Fathers” is on DVD and can be bought now at the Cracker Barrel Old Country Stores for about $29.00. I bought a copy. It focuses on the historically accurate human side of our founding fathers as well as the American Revolution side. It is WELL DONE in the extreme and demonstrates that the founding fathers were—surprise, surprise—fallible human beings just like you and me—-and not the demigods that David Barton would have us believe. Good ammunition in there, and I highly recommend it.

Sorry, PR, but adaptation does not explain mutation. The presence of a callus on one’s foot would be an example of an adaptation: it happens gradually and is a protective reaction to friction against the foot.

Well, guys, it’s been fun wrassling with yet another example of the totalling unyeilding creationist. However it is not cost or time effective to spend so much on so little with predictable results. Perhaps we should dedicate at least an equal amont of time and effort to writing our Gov about the threat of his aoppointing Dunbar to be the president of the TSOBE. Be assured that the Fundos are swamping him with their pressure tactics as they did when evol was the issue. I notice that several of you are already active in other blog issues, so we’ll be in touch. Adios